Summary
The en banc Ninth Circuit held that a district court’s denial of a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court overruled Batzel v. Smith, concluding that anti-SLAPP determinations are intertwined with the merits and are reviewable after final judgment. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded, while assuming for purposes of the decision that California’s anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a district court's denial of a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
- Whether the denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion resolves an issue completely separate from the merits of the action.
- Whether the denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit should overrule Batzel v. Smith.
Holdings
- A district court's denial of a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute is not immediately appealable as a collateral order.
- A denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion does not resolve an issue completely separate from the merits because the anti-SLAPP analysis is inextricably intertwined with factual and legal questions underlying the claims.
- A denial of a California anti-SLAPP motion is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
- Batzel v. Smith is overruled to the extent it held that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
Key quotations
“Upon reexamination, we now conclude that a district court’s denial of a motion to strike under the California anti-SLAPP statute does not satisfy the requirements for an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine.” (at 5)
“Accordingly, we overrule Batzel and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” (at 5)
“We have noted these developments and now hold that orders denying anti-SLAPP motions under California’s statute are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.” (at 11)
“Thus, our holding in this case unifies the approach we use for anti-SLAPP motions under the California statute; whether the motion is granted or denied, a party may not take an interlocutory appeal as of right from that decision under the collateral order doctrine.” (at 13)
Factual background
Ajay Thakore and Gopher Media sued Andrew Melone and American Pizza Manufacturing over alleged harassment, discrimination, unfair competition, and related conduct involving a take-and-bake pizza business. Melone and American Pizza filed counterclaims alleging defamation, trade libel, and unfair business practices based in part on alleged negative online reviews and social-media statements. Plaintiffs responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the countercomplaint, which the district court denied.
Procedural history
Gopher Media and Thakore sued Melone and American Pizza Manufacturing in federal district court. The defendants filed counterclaims for defamation, trade libel, and unfair business practices, and the plaintiffs moved to strike the countercomplaint under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. After the district court denied the motion, plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal. The Ninth Circuit took the case en banc, overruled its prior precedent recognizing collateral-order jurisdiction over denials of California anti-SLAPP motions, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the case.
Remand instructions
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the case is remanded to the district court. Each side shall bear its own costs.